No you didn’t answer the question. I asked if you were abandoning your “It discriminates against women” claim?
Are you now claiming it discriminates against some women and not *all *women? Have we made that much progress?
I explicitly answered this upthread and in the quote.
“Indeed this could lay greater claim to being discriminatory to all women since any woman may run afoul of it. At least a minority who can read will always be able to do so or if they can’t they could learn. There is no way a woman can get around this short of never needing contraceptives (which are prescribed for medical reasons in addition to birth control so any woman may require them).”
In short, any woman might encounter this.
Indeed, I’ve already explained it to you several times, including in the post you originally responded to in which you ignored it, and the post you’re responding to now, in which you ignored it. Just like how discriminating against only “uppity” blacks is discriminating against blacks, discriminating only against women who don’t follow your religious views is discriminating against women.
Seriously, quit it with the sophistry.
Or explain why denying service to only those “uppity negroes” who don’t show proper deference to white folks isn’t discrimination against blacks, because you’re not discriminating against absolutely all blacks.
You do know that your game is pretty obvious to most folks, right?
Even Jim Crow, by your twisted rationalization, wasn’t discrimination because, for instance, blacks who never entered states with Jim Crow laws never were effected by them. And blacks in other nations weren’t effected by them.
Yep, because it does.
Unable to deal with the actual facts, you’ve decided that it must discriminate against absolutely all women, everywhere, for it to actually be discrimination.
Just like you actually claimed that if you deny someone’s request to fill a prescription, you haven’t actually denied them if someone else fills it.
Now your argument is reduced to comparing denying women legally prescribed medicine, including denying women prescriptions to stop uterine bleeding, to the distance a woman has to walk in a bathroom to urinate.
Your games are obvious.
One more time. Show me where a woman was denied that medication.
I’ll wait for your cite.
Your argument is really getting pathetic. I notice that you’ve changed the subject as the factual refutation of your “all women” fiction was something you couldn’t touch on. This is yet another of your errors that you’re cycling back to, as you seem to think that enough time has passed.
She was denied medication when the pharmacist denied the request to fill the prescription. You know this. I doubt anybody who is a native speaker of English shares your confusion as to whether or not denying someone’s request is really denying it if, later, someone else doesn’t also deny it. You claim to be confused on that point, and I guess that’s okay, but the rest of us realize what it means that your argument requires such obfuscation whereby even denial isn’t denial.
Beaten on the facts, you have instead resorted to the incredibly disingenuous arugment that she was not actually denied her medication, because even though she was actually denied her medication, other people didn’t also deny it to her.
Your games are obvious and threadbare.
I addressed how you referenced “all” women. Will addressing it again help? I don’t think so.
No, she was was not denied the medication. A pharmacist declined to fill her prescription, requiring her representative to call another pharmacy, where she received the medication. See, you’re again resorting to using false fear tactics (denied her medication) to make a point.
Do you have a cite that she never got her medication?
I think I’ve asked for no fewer than three cites from you for your wild claims, and you’ve failed to provide a single one. Is there a reason why?
I’m honestly not sure of who you’re expecting to be fooled by this. Not only did I not reference “all” women, but I went to great lengths explaining how something could discriminate against women, or blacks, without discriminating against 100% of a class. You ignored it. I pointed out the facts and refuted your fallacious claims, yet again. You ignored it. Then you changed the subject to how a denial of a request to fill a prescription isn’t a denial if there are other pharmacists, somewhere, who agree to fill it.
You ignored that factual correction and then quickly changed the subject to your bizarre claim that denying a request to fill a prescription isn’t denying a request to fill it.
It’s generally best not to contradict yourself one sentence to the next.
That’s okay Morgan. In your world, denying a request to fill a prescription isn’t denying it if someone else later affirms it. But as this is a board populated mostly by native speakers of English, we’re not at risk of the same type of confusion.
Again we see that, just like what a law actually explicitly allows is “absurd hyperbole”, reality is “false fear”.
Someone is making emotional arguments and ignoring the facts.
It’s just not who you’re pointing your finger at.
As we’re in GD, I will simply note that this is absolutely untrue. You have done no such thing.
You have, for instance, responded for a correct claim about what the law allows with a dodge about how I must provide a cite that such allowable events have already happened and made it to the news. You have, for instance, responded to the fact that the woman had her request for the prescription denied with a dodge about how you demand a cite showing that even though the request was denied, everyone else didn’t also deny that request. It is telling that you’re now reduced to calling the facts “wild claims” along with “absurd hypotheticals” and “fear”.
As I said, your game is both obvious and utterly threadbare.
When your argument relies on calling the facts themselves “wild claims”, it’s a good hint that you aint got nuthin’.
I see. When defending a losing position, you edit my quotes to make your position viable.
I post( in post 726).
*
No, she was was not denied the medication. A pharmacist declined to fill her prescription, requiring her representative to call another pharmacy, where she received the medication.
*
You creatively snip the quote to change it’s meaning (in post # 727), to state…
*
No, she was was not denied the medication. A pharmacist declined to fill her prescription
*
You creatively snipped that quote, knowing full well you’d changed it’s meaning to meet your needs.
Poor form.
Under these laws, a pharmacist may decline to sell condoms to a man if the pharmacist objects to birth control.
I offer this observation with the full knowledge that it won’t ever happen, but since you’re arguing from a what might happen position and don’t feel it weakens your claim to not be able to present an actual case of it happening, theoretically you should acknowledge this point.
You won’t, of course, but it should be interesting to see what rationale you offer.
Like most of your other claims, this too is fictional.
By the way, I know that you’ve seen the numerous unanswered factual refutations of our claims,because you responded to the post that has them, and again, ignored them. You could, for instance, retract your claim that you asked for a single cite of anything I actually said, that I did not then provide.
I don’t have high hopes, just as whenit was demonstrated that you were simply factually wrong about what the law said, you tried to change the subject and you never could identify why you were correct (in fact you claimed that it was my fault that you couldn’t explain why your interpretation was at all reasonable). Now you’re trying to pretend that denying someone’s request to fill their prescription doesn’t count if someone else accepts it.
I don’t know of any native speakers of English, at all, who believe that in order to have a request denied, it must be universally denied and denied in perpetuity. Whoever taught you that was what denied means, they did a very poor job.
But please, when a native English speaker tells you what a word means, especially when it conforms to the denotation of the word, just accept that you’re wrong and move on. Unfortunately, the games you’re playing are obviously what someone with a losing position may use to support their argument. Which is why, time and again, you’re arguing in the teeth of facts and claiming that facts are “fear” or facts are “wild claims” or facts are “absurd hypotheticals.”
When you can’t even admit let alone address factual refutations of your claims, it’s clear that your argument is done and it’s time to stick a fork in it.
Native speakers of English will notice that not only is the fact of the request for the prescription was denied is not, in fact, changed by the fact that someone else later accepted it.
Just like “A black man was refused service at Woolworth’s lunch counter but was later served as the segregated restaurant on the other end of town.” does not, in fact, mean that he wasn’t denied service.
I quoted the relevant portion of your own admission that of course the woman was denied her request that the prescription be filled, in that you admit, in plain words that the pharmacist declined to fill her prescription. No definition of “denied”, means “denied but and never ever ever accepted by someone else in another place and at another time.”
But please, keep demonstrating that your argument cannot deal with the facts and these obvious games are all you have left.
Beep-boop I am a Law-Bot
Err-or, Err-or, this is not allowed in the law! Cannot compute response.
Given that we generally rely on the Quote box to indicate actual quoted texts from other posters, leaving the use of quotation marks to indicate ironic expression, I would say that Finn gets the point for this volley.
That said, since the SDMB is open to anyone who happens to chance upon it who may or may not be familiar with the culture, Bricker has a basis for his complaint.
In the future, it would behoove Finn, (and anyone else), to explicitly note that any text that he creates is a paraphrase or an ascribed hypothetical and not an actual statement from his target.
[ /Moderating ]
Here’s my rationale:
First, condoms do not require a prescription that requires a pharmacist to fill. That said I’ll go with what (I think) is the spirit of your argument and pretend a man does need one.
So, taking the premise as given, by your take a pharmacist may deny service to anyone regardless of what is being asked for. All the pharmacist need do is claim a “conscientious objection” and that’s it.
As a lawyer (and/or person) are you ok with such an open ended state of affairs? The pharmacist has no professional or legal responsibility they can be held to? If they see an obese person grabbing a bag of Pork Skins they can deny that person their cholesterol medicine? What if they just do not like the person? Do they need to be consistent and deny it to everyone or can they claim they know George is a sinner and thus do not want to serve him?
Does the pharmacist even need to be able to detail what their “conscientious objection” is or merely assert they have one? If they have to spell out the objection what is the measure for what is acceptable?
[sub]Bricker: I have not forgotten my promise to respond to a previous question and I fully intend to…not sure it will happen tonight though.[/sub]
The Wiki cite on the 24th amendment says it only applied to federal elections
The wiki cite on pol taxes says the poll tax was ultimately declaared unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th amendment.
I don’t really follow this stuff so you may be right. I don’t think it matters for purposes of this debate except to say that it didn’t require a constitutional amendment to elminate poll taxes because they were ultimately declared unconstitutional under the 14th.
I don’t think there is a similar case to be made for using the 14th amendment to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills against their will unless there is a second order penumbral right that not only protects people from laws outlawing abortion but also creates an affirmative duty to sell birth control pills
I thought marbury v madison was more of a taking of power rather than a vesting of power.
In any event I think roe v wade is a horribly reasoned opinion that creates new constitutional rights out of whole cloth BUT I generally agree with the results
Are you serious.
In Morgenstern’s world as long as what you are seeking is available somewhere on the planet there is not a problem and you shouldn’t get fussed about it.
The fact that discrimination can exist without explicitly targetting a group doesn’t mean the lack of targetting a group means that discrimination exists.
Its not discrimination just because you don’t like the result. Its not enough to simply make the accusation.
And like I’ve said before voting is different. Voting and employment are two area where the laws on discrimination are different than in other areas.
Things like discriminatory effect or discriminatory impact are not really used outside of those two areas. You need to prove discriminatory INTENT in most cases involving discrimination. For most laws, discriminatory impact or effect are not enough. Why wasn’t the crack cocaine law overturned by the courts based on its racist effect?
If you want to extend discriminatory effect and discriminatory impact more broadly then why wasn’t the federal crack cocaine sentencing guideline overturned by the courts? Why did it require a legislative resolution? Why can’t I sue catholic priests for refusing to marry gay men? The objection to gay marriage really only affects gay people, how is this different? Why can’t I sue a doctor that performs medically necessary abortions to perform my elective abortion? Isn’t his policy ONLY affecting women?
Not generally but in some cases, yes.
Is that true or not true?
[/quote]
I think voting and employment are different.
You are drawing a false analogy to apply logic that doesn’t apply in this case.
By your logic you could force priests to perform marriage for gay couples after all, the catholic church’s policy only affects gay couples so it is discriminatory.
By your logic you could force doctors that will perform emergency medically necessary abortions to perform elective abortions as well because his refusal to do so only affects women.
Why can’t you make these exact same arguments for gay marriage and abortion? Or do you also contend that they do in fact apply to these two situations as well?
I should clarify…
The objection to female hormone contraceptives, in this case, is fertilization is still possible and the contraceptive causes what amounts to an abortion (the egg never implants…woman has her period as usual).
A condom is a barrier method. As such fertilization cannot occur unless the condom fails (rare but happens…I know from personal experience but no pregnancy resulted in my case).
You’d need someone who objects to any sex whatsoever except for procreation. I am unaware of any religion that preaches that these days (I tried looking it up and saw some suggestion that some Eastern Orthodox sects might but even among them it is not a set-in-stone thing).